CL 對 LWP

CL 對 LWP

Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or that the trial judge's factual findings were perverse; the trial judge correctly applied s17 shifting the evidential burden to the respondent who discharged it on the balance of probabilities; exclusion of the Lianwei property from the matrimonial pool was a fact-based finding supported by evidence; however permission to appeal is granted limited to the original trial costs order due to arguable issues on legal principle and fairness.

Citation
CL 對 LWP
Parties
Applicant (wife): CL; Respondent (husband): LWP; First Intervener: LLH; Second Intervener: LWT
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 May 2017
Case Number
HCMP3517/2016
Procedural Posture
High Court Permission to Appeal (civil, Family) / Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused in respect of the s17 application and ancillary relief; leave to appeal granted solely in relation to the original trial costs order; no costs order made in respect of this leave application.
Legal Topics
Maintenance (ancillary Relief), Transactions to Defeat Matrimonial Claims (s17 Cap.192), Appeal Standard on Factual Findings, Costs
Source Language
CH
Family Law Matrimonial Property Civil Procedure Maintenance (ancillary Relief) Transactions to Defeat Matrimonial Claims (s17 Cap.192) Appeal Standard on Factual Findings Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CL

Applicant (wife)

LWP

Respondent (husband)

LLH

First Intervener

LWT

Second Intervener

Procedural Posture

High Court Permission to Appeal (civil, Family) / Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against the trial judge's findings on transfers under section 17 Cap.192
  2. 2 Whether transfers of property and cash were intended to defeat applicant's maintenance claim
  3. 3 Whether the half interest in joint property constitutes matrimonial property or was held beneficially by respondent by resulting trust

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or that the trial judge's factual findings were perverse; the trial judge correctly applied s17 shifting the evidential burden to the respondent who discharged it on the balance of probabilities; exclusion of the Lianwei property from the matrimonial pool was a fact-based finding supported by evidence; however permission to appeal is granted limited to the original trial costs order due to arguable issues on legal principle and fairness.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused in respect of the s17 application and ancillary relief; leave to appeal granted solely in relation to the original trial costs order; no costs order made in respect of this leave application.

Orders

  • Refuse permission to appeal against the trial judge's decisions on the s17 application and ancillary relief
  • Grant permission to appeal in relation to the original trial costs order only